Bjorn LomborgVarmennettu tili

@Infocadl2015 @nypost see this US hearing on IPCC data https://youtu.be/kFyH-b3FRvE 

What follows the “therefore” never seems to square up to reality

When is the media right? Would be something new.

why did co2 sink from high levels in the past?

It’s not understandable in anything but to a superficial sense. Exaggeration and quasi religious overtones do a great disservice to the alarmist’s own cause. On the flip side, it is incredibly helpful to those of us that are lukewarmers or outright sceptical.

…consensus. So, your argument makes sense, but I have no idea whether there are other pieces you are underestimating or overlooking. Getting back to the actual report, anyone that’s reading this – go to this link https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/  and actually read it yourself!

…media got wrong though? Midway through the article you switch from correcting CNN to disagreeing with the report’s findings and methodology. But shouldn’t that be taken up with the report? As lay people, it’s hard to review your argument fairly – I defer to the expert…

...which “did not attribute changes in flooding to anthropogenic [human] influence nor report detectable changes in flooding magnitude, duration or frequency.” I don’t have the time to double check, but I’ll assume you’re correct. Thank you for clarifying this. Is that all the...

You quote that: “ “Drought statistics over the entire contiguous US have declined,” the report finds, reminding us that “the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event.”” And “On flooding, the assessment accepts the IPCC’s finding, ...